Article Summary of How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight Citation: Eisenhardt, Kathleen, Jean Kahwajy, and

L.J Bourgeois III. (1997) How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight. Harvard Business Review Article Summary written by: Robert Bullard, University of St. Thomas

Conflict between managers over decision issues is natural and even necessary. Making decisions under uncertain conditions is likely to cause reasonable people to have disagreements over the best path for their companys future. Substantive remarks can be misconstrued as personal attacks; personalities can become intertwined with issues. The task then becomes how to keep constructive conflict over issues from succumbing to dysfunctional interpersonal conflict, and to encourage managers to argue without destroying their ability to work as a team. The authors studied top management teams over a period of 10 years and found six tactics that were common to the teams who had productive conflict. While these successful companies would debate the issues vigorously, there was little wasted time on self-interest. Words used to describe their team members were smart, team player, and best in the business. They described their work as a team as open, fun, and productive. While the teams who were unable to successfully deal with interpersonal conflict rarely talked with one another, tending to separate into cliques. The words they used to describe their team members were manipulative, secretive, burned out, and political. The six elements that differentiated the successful teams from the unsuccessful teams were focusing on the facts, multiplying the alternatives, creating common goals, using humor, balancing the power structure, and seeking consensus with qualification.

Some managers believe that too much data increases interpersonal conflict due to a wider range of issues up for debate. However, having more information available to the team members is actually a positive if the data is objective and up-to-date. The more substantive data available to the team members means there is more focus on the issues. There is no room for personal opinions to play a role in the decision making because there will be an overwhelming amount of data to support the decision being made. According to the authors there is a direct link between reliance on facts and low levels of interpersonal conflict. Presenting the facts through substantial data allows the decision makers to avoid wasting time on what the facts might be. Multiplying the alternatives allows the teams to diffuse conflict. By having more than two choices it is less about this choice or that choice and allows managers to vary the degree of their support over a wider range. The authors note that generating options is also a way to bring managers together in a common and inherently stimulating task. It concentrates their energy on solving problems, and it increases the likelihood of obtaining integrative solutions alternatives that incorporate the views of a greater number of the decision makers. Teams that limit themselves to just one or two options often find that the conflict turns personal. The creation of common goals allows for productive conflict as long as the same outcome is desired by everyone. Framing strategic choices as collaborative, rather than competitive, exercises minimizes destructive conflict. Steve Jobs said Its okay to spend a lot of time arguing about which route to take to San Francisco when everyone wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets wasted in such arguments if one person wants to go to San Francisco and

another secretly wants to go to San Deigo. The lack of common goals often l eaves team members viewing themselves in competition with one another. This competition leads to being less open to others point of views and more likely to misinterpret and blame one another. According to the authors the use of humor works as a defense mechanism to protect people from the stressful and threatening situations that commonly arise in the course of making strategic decisions. Teams that inject humor deemphasize the stress of competing in brutally tough and uncertain markets. Teams that were devoid of humor tended to be marked by high interpersonal conflict. The hostile and stressful decision making environments were often due to team members sometimes being friends with one or two other members, and not engaging in any attempt to inject humor in to the workplace. Executives need to be able to find a balance of power in the teams. The CEO would have more power than other executives, but those executives should have significant power, especially as it relates to their area of responsibility. In instances where there was interpersonal conflict the authors noted that the leaders were either autocratic who managed through highly centralized power or they were weak leaders and the members saw a power vacuum at the leadership position that needed to be filled. When managers believe that the teams decision making process is fair, and that their input is being taken into consideration, there is less chance of interpersonal conflict. Being able to reach consensus with qualification is another tactic for relaying fairness to the team members. Being able to reach a unanimous decision would be ideal, but often is the case that there will be members who disagree on a particular course of action. When

disagreement occurs, all input from team members should be evaluated before the leader makes a decision. One CEO noted that when a unanimous decision was required that each member of the team had veto power, ultimately this leads to a delay in reaching a decision. When a decision requires consensus it often drags on, members become discouraged by what they perceive as a waste of time and a useless debate. In contrast when there is consensus with qualification the decisions are made more quickly. Members are able to talk about a decision and either come to a consensus or the most relevant senior executive can make a guided decision based on the input received from the team. Academic research shows that at the top-management level there is going to be conflict and that this conflict can be valuable. By engaging in healthy conflict, executives will have more thorough information, be better able to interpret the issues, and the choice of solutions will be greater. The authors studies identified six tactics that when utilized would lower interpersonal conflict, allow teams to make decisions more quickly, and be able to make higher quality decisions.

Comments / Questions? I found the authors writing very intriguing as it relates to conflict in teams. While the article deals with executives, the information can be used at any level where teams are being utilized to make decisions. One of the biggest points that I agree with is the one that the author makes about having a consensus decision making process. In my experience it is very hard to get more than one person to agree on anything. Being able to have your opinion heard and taken into consideration is all the most anyone involved in a team decision wants. They want to know that they were able to give their input and that it was heard. Usually this can be accomplished through feedback. As the authors noted, if team members feel that they have been able to express their opinion and that it was listened to, then no matter what the decision outcome is, the member will perceive the decision making process as fair. I believe that if you operate in what you perceive as a fair decision making process then that is the greatest deterrent to interpersonal conflict.